• Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 - Para 76(b) - Complaint by appellant under trial court convicted the respondent - Acquittal in appeal - Appeal against acquittal - Whether the order of acquittal is sustainable - Difference between the sections 14(1) and 14(2) para 76(b) of the scheme - Explained. Held that the judgment of the appellate court is redundant and the order of the trial court is restored.

• When E.P.F. & M.P. Act applied to school, the school - Contributed only 6.25% of total pay whereas earlier it was contributing 8.33% - Whether this reduction of rate would amount to reduction in the quantum of total benefits which were being paid to petitioners? No.

• 'Whether section 5 of the Act which authorizes the Central Government to frame the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, is ultra vires, the Act or not and also violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India? Held No.

• Workers and Cinema Theatres Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1981 - Liability of employer to pay contribution - Applicability of the scheme of the petitioner with retrospective effect before issue of the Notification - Whether proper? No. The Provident Fund Commissioner shall determine the liability of the amount afresh.

Goverdhanlal Purohit v. R.P.F. Commissioner, 1993 LLR 575 (Raj HC).

• Word 'Vest' occurring in section 10(2) - Meaning of - Nomination of brother by the employee - Whether nominee gets absolute title to the Provident Fund lying to the credit of the deceased - Held, it does not clothe the nominee with the absolute title or benefit of the exclusion of heirs of the deceased.

• If appellant has provided separate provident fund scheme which is more beneficial than what was provided under the Act, then appropriate course for appellant is to seek exemption from operation of the Act under section 17 of the Act.

• Merely because the petitioner even bona fidely was contesting that the provisions of the Act were not applicable, it would not absolve the petitioner from liability to deposit the contribution under the Act created for the welfare of employees.

• Unless appropriate Government has issued Notification amending exempted scheme, revised condition that amendment in statutory Scheme more beneficial to the employee existing rules, would become applicable automatically, did not apply to already exempted establishment.

• Writ petition will not be maintainable in stalling the payment of contributions of Provident Fund more particularly when an appropriate forum exists under the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act.

• A member of Employees' Provident Funds having not exercised his option for Employees, Family Pension Scheme 1971 in terms of its para 4 read with Form I cannot claim that he had automatically become member of Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995.

• A quasi-judicial authority like Provident Funds Commissioner should act reasonably, fairly and should not act with undue haste and arbitrariness. When a request had been made well in advance for adjournment of proceedings by assigning reasons, the Commissioner should have, in fairness, accommodated the petitioner by granting a short adjournment hence the order passed ex parte being an arbitrary exercise of power which was in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution cannot sustain.

• A partnership firm and manager are also covered within the definition of 'employer' under the EPF & MP Act and acquittal of a manager for default in depositing the EPF contributions because the firm is not a separate legal entity will be set aside hence the High Court convicted both e.g. firm and the manager of the firm along with the Managing Partner.

• The Provident FW1d Commissioner committed a fundamental mistake in applying rule 12(7) to the petitioners and limiting their claim from the dates on which applications were submitted by them taking those dates as the dates of option for retirement from service and for pension.

• The employees of newspaper industry have always been treated as a class apart and as such not treating them as 'excluded employees' under the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act and the Scheme by a notification issued in 1956, will not be unconstitutional. .

• The Commissioner under the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act while determining money due from an employer, in exercise of its powers under section 7 A of the EPF & MP Act, can go into the question as to whether the wages being paid to the employees have been splitted under various heads like basic wages, house rent allowance and other allowance has been with an ulterior motive as a subterfuge to avoid EPF contributions by the employer towards provident fund.

• The Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act is a social welfare legislation to provide for the employees' pension fund etc. hence this Court will not monitor implementation of such policy unless the same is discriminatory or arbitrary. Since the Employees' Pension Scheme is for the welfare of employees, the same cannot be held to be violative of the Constitution.

• The Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act is a social welfare legislation hence while interpreting its provisions where a section is capable of two constructions, the one which is more beneficial to the employees, the Courts should give preference to that section.

• Provident fund, gratuity, pensionary benefits, leave salary or other retiral benefits are immuned from attachment under any decree of the civil court even when such dues are payable to the legal heirs of the deceased employee since provisions of section 60(9) of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 11 of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 provides for such exceptions from attachment of the dues as accruing to the legal heirs after the death of the employee.

• When the employees were not denied of any existing benefits but the contributions were being made by the employer in violation of the provisions of the Scheme and as such the rectification in reducing the rate of contribution will not be violative of section 12 of EPF & MP Act providing that the employer cannot reduce the wages.

• The proviso to sub-clause (2) of clause 29 of the Provident Fund Scheme providing that the employee can contribute more than the prescribed limit, but by such payment of contributions by the employer can be restricted up to the prescribed limit.

• Determination of money by fixing the liability of the employer under section 7 A by the Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner will not be justified when his order about fixing the liability was passed before expiry of the lime given to the employer for production of material.

• A school, covered under the Provident Funds Act, will not be liable for payment of contributions of the employees such as drivers, conductors as engaged by the transport contractor for providing transportation.

P F Act

EPFO Launched new Grievance Management Portal

Enhancement of the cash benefit on Pension:

Enhanced the cash benefit payable to the family of EPF subscribers on their death in service from present maximum of rs.60,000 to rs.1.00 lakh. Published in the gazette of india, part ii, section 3, subsection (i), vide number g.s.r. 523(e), dated the 18th june, 2010

EPF(Amendment) Scheme, 2011

MINISTRY’ OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2011

G.S.R. 25(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5, read with sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), the Central Government hereby makes the following Scheme, further to amend the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952. namely

1. (1) This Scheme may be called the Employees’ Provident Funds (Amendment) Scheme, 2011.

(2) It shall come into force from the 1st day of April, 2011

2. In the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as the said Scheme), in paragraph 60, after sub-paragraph (5), the following sub-paragraph shall be substituted, namely:—

“(6) Interest shall not be credited to the account of a member from the date on which it has become Inoperative Account, under the provisions of sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 72”

3. In the said Scheme, in paragraph 72, in sub-paragraph (6):—

(a) for the words “but no claim has been preferred” the words “but no application for withdrawal under paragraphs 69 or 70 or transfer, as the case may be has been preferred ” shall he substituted:

(b) for the words “three years”, at both the places where they occur, the words “thirty six months” shall be substituted.

ESIC

Employees’ State Insurance (Amendment) Act, 2010.

Following are the some salient feature of the ESI (Amendment) Act, 2010.

Extension Of The ESI Scheme To The Construction Site WorkerS :

The Construction site workers who were kept out of coverage of ESI act till date, Now covered with the implementation of it roll out "any time, anywhere". esic services will be available to these mobile and migratory workers with no geographical barrier.

APPRENTICES COVERED:

Benefits under the scheme have also been extended to apprentices and trainees employed under Apprentice Act and Standing Order Act.

POWER TO APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT;

The appropriate Government is empowered to extend the provisions of ESIC Act 1948 to any other establishment or class of establishments, industrial, commercial, agricultural or otherwise after giving one month’s notice of its intention of doing so by notification in Official Gazette instead of notice period of six months.

DEFINITION OF DEPENDENT EXPANDED:

Definition of “dependents” as contained in clause 6A of section 2 of the Act has been extended to enlarge the number of beneficiaries under the act such as:

A widow, a legitimate or adopted son below the age of 25 years and an unmarried legitimate or adopted daughter.
The age limit of the dependants has been enhanced from 18 to 25.

Dependent parents as per definition of “family” has been substituted so as to include;

“A minor brother or sister wholly dependent upon the earnings of the insured person in case the insured person is unmarried and his or her parents are not alive”. It has been also clarified that dependent parents to include “Dependent parents, whose income from all sources does not exceed such income as prescribed by the Central Government”.

SMALL FACTORIES ALSO ARE COVERED:

The definition of Factory under Section 2(12) has been amended to expand coverage of smaller factories. The amended Act covers all factories, which employ 10 or more persons irrespective of the fact whether the manufacturing process is being carried out with the aid of the power or without the aid of the power.

INSPECTORS RE-DESIGNATED AS SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICERS:

The designation of Inspector has been re-designated as “Social Security Officer” to enroll them as facilitator of the Scheme rather than to act as mere inspectors.

VRS EMPLOYEES ALSO COVERED:

Medical benefits to the insured person and his spouse have been extended under circumstances where insured person retires under Voluntary Retirement Scheme or takes premature retirement. In the earlier Act the benefit was applicable only on attaining the age of superannuation. Proviso to sub section 3 of section 56 has been substituted to provide the same.

NOTIONAL EXTENSION OF PREMISES:

Accident occurring to an insured person while commuting from his residence to the place of employment and vice-a-versa shall be deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of employment for the purpose of benefit under the Act. A new section 51-E has been added for this purpose.

UNORGANIZED SECTOR EMPLOYEES COVERED:

A new Chapter V-A has been added to enable provision for extending medical care to non insured persons against payment of user-charges to facilitate providing medical care to the below poverty line (BPL) families and other un-organized sector workers covered under the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY).

Exemption of a factory or establishment or class of factories or establishments from the operation of this Act will be granted only if the employees in such factories or establishments are otherwise in receipt of benefits substantially similar or superior to the benefits provided under this Act.

Section 91 A of the Act is amended to removing. retrospective grant of exemption from the provision of the Act

HR Info.in

Hr Info.in

Workmen's compensation Act, 2010

Given below are the synopsis of the changes.

THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2009 is now renamed as THE EMPLOYEE'S COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2009 and wherever "workman" or "workmen" is mentioned in the entire Act the same needs to be read as "Employee" to make it gender sensitive.

The compensation payable on death from the injury, is (i) minimum of Rs.80000 is increased to Rs.120000 or (ii) 50% of the monthly wages of deceased multiplied by the relevant factor.

The compensation payable on Permanent Total Disablement from the injury, is (i) minimum of Rs.90000 is increased to Rs.140000 or (ii) 60% of the monthly wages of deceased multiplied by the relevant factor.

actual reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of injury caused during course of employment.

Empower the Central Government to specify monthly wages for the purpose of compensation. It is 50% of Rs.8000/-. This amendment is notified vide Central Government Notification No. S.O. 1258(E) vide Ministry of Labour & Employment dated 31st May 2010.

Definition of workmen replaced by "Definition of Employee"- also now includes CLERICAL employees.

The Commissioner shall dispose compensation cases within a time period of 3 months.